role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 27, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

SASKATCHEWAN ELECTION RESULT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

MANAGEMENT BOARD PLANNING DECISION

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

FAMILY BENEFITS

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

FUEL CONVERSION PROGRAM

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

COMMUNITY COLLEGE FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

PROFITS FROM CRIME ACT

FAMILY BENEFITS

TRANSLATION SERVICES

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

SASKATCHEWAN ELECTION RESULT

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to pay tribute to Premier-elect Grant Devine for his stunning victory in Saskatchewan last evening. As you know, the Progressive Conservative Party won 57 seats to seven for the New Democratic Party, with 54 per cent of the popular vote.

I would like to pay tribute to Allan Blakeney for his long service as Premier of Saskatchewan and for his work on the constitutional issue. I hope the House will join me in offering sincere congratulations to Premier Devine and his wife, Chantal, and to the 56 Progressive Conservatives who were elected last evening.

Mr. Nixon: The whole thing is out of order.

Mr. Peterson: I am not sure whether that statement was in order. Was it, Mr. Speaker? It just shows that the established interests in this country are under very major assault today. The members opposite should take no heart from it; as a matter of fact, they should fear for the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions.

Mr. Peterson: Just one more small point: If after 11 years they fall like that, imagine how they are going to fall after 38 or 40.

Mr. Nixon: You are sick already. You are menopausal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It takes one to know one.

Mr. Nixon: I went through that a long time ago, and so did you.

Mr. Speaker: Time is moving on.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would be good enough to inform me whether the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) will be here today.

Mr. Nixon: He is just writing a statement right now, the very latest information.

An hon. member: Here he is.

Mr. Nixon: Get the cameras going.

Mr. Bradley: Let's hear some applause.

[Applause]

Mr. Peterson: It is curious, Mr. Speaker -- just while we are wasting time and allowing him to get his breath -- how happy they are about the Saskatchewan situation when they did not celebrate their own first anniversary in power the same way on March 19, 1982.

Mr. Nixon: They were embarrassed: not a promise kept.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question about the walkouts today. I wonder whether he has any up-to-date reports on the number of cases of elective surgery that have been cancelled or postponed in this province, the number of committee meetings that have not been attended because of the walkouts, the number of charts that have not been signed and the backlog in terms of surgery in the 233 public hospitals in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those figures with me.

Mr. Peterson: We have been requesting information on this situation, as the minister is very well aware. We, on this side of the House, have been very much questioning the information-gathering apparatus he has at his disposal with respect to the difficulties in the system today.

Is the minister aware, for example, that 338 operations were postponed or cancelled in the Peel Memorial Hospital in the light of the last walkout? Is he aware that 32 operations were cancelled in the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital today and that 27 operations will be cancelled tomorrow? What is his information about the effect on the deterioration of health care as a result of this massive postponement of elective surgery right across the province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Leader of the Opposition is putting the proposition that he expects me to know how many operations have been cancelled at present in each of the 250 hospitals in Ontario, then he should simply call my office and say, "Would you mind bringing to question period those details for the 250 hospitals in Ontario?"

Mr. Peterson: Check your briefing book. It may be in there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition should not be trite. He knows that when he stands up and asks what the numbers are in the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, there is no way that I would have that information here. In fact, it would be pointless of me to have my staff prepare that amount of detail for every hospital. If I had that information, the next question the Leader of the Opposition would ask me would be, "Can you give us the details of the surgery that was cancelled? Or does the minister know that Mr. So-and-So had such and such surgery cancelled at the Peel Memorial Hospital and what does he intend to do about it?"

I can say that I have some very capable people in my ministry who are spending 14 and 15 hours a day working with the hospitals to make sure that those operations are rescheduled and that no one's health care is threatened as a result of the job action. They are working with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to make sure that all of the mechanisms in place are being used. That, it seems to me, is a far more productive exercise than having my staff make sure that I walk in here every day with an up-to-the-minute count of the cancellations in the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital.

My concern is that I have staff who are spending all of their time making sure the numbers the member is giving us are being dealt with, finding out whether they are being rescheduled for tomorrow, next week or were done yesterday; and finally, if in any of those circumstances there is any indication that there is any misconduct or unprofessional conduct, that those cases are taken up with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. That is precisely what our obligation ought to be, and we are discharging that fully.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that his ministry does have an up-to-date count of the scheduled operations being postponed or cancelled? Can he assure us that each one of those will be investigated to see whether there was medical misconduct?

We were able to contact 12 hospitals, eight in Metropolitan Toronto and four outside Metro, in Sudbury, Ottawa, Windsor and London, and by our count something like 377 operations in those 12 hospitals are not going forward today that otherwise would have gone ahead. Does he not think that is a serious enough situation that he should have taken preventive action to ensure that it did not happen?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, since we have been over the latter part of that question many times in question period I will not deal with that again today.

In terms of the hospitals the member has contacted, he has a total of 377; and I wonder whether he asked how many of those operations were done the previous day or yesterday instead of today or how many have been scheduled for Thursday and Friday of this week. Because, as we study the case histories of what has happened over the first two or three weeks of the job action, it is quite apparent that a great number of those elective procedures were simply rescheduled for later the following day.

That is, by and large, the case. There are some exceptions. It is obviously those exceptions that cause us some concern, because if someone has had an elective case cancelled for three or four months that is a lot different from a situation where someone has had an elective case cancelled for 24 hours or done 24 hours earlier.

2:10 p.m.

We are asking the hospitals to provide us with complete details of the cancelled surgery and a complete profile of the case history involved in each of those cases. When that process is in place and all the information is complete, appropriate action will be taken.

I emphasize this: to state that 377 cases in the hospitals the member contacted have been cancelled does not give a full picture. The fact is that out of those 377, and I do not suggest this is a result of my going through the 377, I would expect a majority of those cases have been postponed or moved up within a matter of days.

Mr. Peterson: Will the minister agree that he does not have the devices available to gather this information and that he does not know the extent of the crisis? Let me give an example. He ordered up a report on the effects of cancelled surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children from some three weeks ago. To the best of my knowledge, he still does not have a report or has not brought that back to the House.

The reality is that the mechanisms the minister has put in place are not operating and he does not know the extent of the crisis. Given that and the evidence that we in this party are receiving, albeit on an ad hoc basis, does he not feel it is time to bring in back-to-work legislation? We will co-operate with the minister in that regard to make sure he has that weapon available to him to prevent a serious tragedy which we would all regret.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In point of fact, we have that information from the Hospital for Sick Children. It was supplied rather swiftly. It was available to the College of Physicians and Surgeons immediately upon its request, and I would be pleased to make that available to the Leader of the Opposition. We have had the letter for about a week.

Mr. Peterson: As of this morning it was not received.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The College of Physicians and Surgeons had immediate co-operation from the Hospital for Sick Children upon my request for a full and complete examination of what happened there. That information is in our hands, has been for some time and we are dealing with it.

I sat through all of the debate yesterday and I listened carefully to the remarks of the Liberal Party. That party still did not spell out what it meant by back-to-work legislation, although I understand the popularity of what the member is trying to say.

I will say this for the third party: I disagree with the procedures outlined by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), but at least he outlined a sensible mechanism whereby that would be done if it were the desire of this assembly to do it. It is not the desire of this government to follow that route.

The Leader of the Opposition is blindly advocating something called back-to-work legislation and he quite frankly does not know what it means. If he listened at all to the remarks being made on this side of the House, he would understand that the continuation of work and the continuation of care mechanisms are already in place in the current legislation. If that legislation is enforced, we will have effective continuation of care, making back-to-work legislation, however the Leader of the Opposition might enact it, unnecessary.

As we watch developments over the next couple of weeks, we will have to see how effective that is. At present, it appears that almost every physician in this province is making sure there is a continuation of care and that they are meeting their obligations to the citizens of this province. We will monitor that closely and, if that situation changes, we will report back to the House and act accordingly.

MANAGEMENT BOARD PLANNING DECISION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. The minister is aware of the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which ruled that no expansion be allowed at two malls in London. He is also aware that his cabinet reversed this decision last week. Can he explain to this House why he reversed that decision? Was it because of the ministrations of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), the representative from that area, who I guess one could say "was the chief architect of that decision"? Can the minister explain why the chief architect's proposals are more important to him than nine weeks' work of very expensive OMB hearings?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Leader of the Opposition has before him the decision, which gives some reasons. I do not have that decision with me today. However, the honourable member will understand that the Minister of Industry and Trade, who is a member for a London riding, is a member of cabinet. We value his advice, and he had some input into what was decided. We understand the employment that will result not only from the building of these plazas but also from the manpower required later will be very welcome in London. We think it is a good decision.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister realize that it runs contrary to the government's own policies? I refer to the June 12 directive from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing which says it will not approve new malls where there is evidence that a peripheral mall will have an adverse impact on the downtown core.

Is he also aware that the OMB concluded there would be an adverse impact on the downtown business core? They said it is clear that there is a policy of the government that the central business districts of municipalities such as London should be kept viable and protected as much as possible from deterioration, by appropriate planning techniques, and that the board in its decisions should not approve of retail developments that threaten the dominance of the central business district.

The OMB said direct evidence before the board indicated that the combined effect of the approval of the White Oaks and the Westmount expansion together could adversely affect the central business district. What does the minister know that they do not know, and why is he making a sham of the OMB process?

Hon. Mr. McCague: We know there was an endorsement by council and we know it is a good plan.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister not do away with the OMB and the charade of going through, in this case, a nine-week hearing, if on the first opportunity in cabinet he is prepared to bend and listen more closely to his Tory colleagues than to the judicial process or the rule of law? What is the purpose of the whole process? Why does he not do away with it, quit the sham and save everybody some money, rather than laying it out in the way he is doing it? It seems that friends are more important to him than the judicial system.

Hon. Mr. McCague: We would not want to do away with OMB hearings because the honourable member might become unemployed. The OMB does a good job but there is always an appeal to cabinet, its 26 members have the right to change a decision if they see fit. There are several people on the other side of the House who have come to me on many occasions when they thought the OMB was incorrect. Be consistent.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain what the public can expect to obtain from the current set of negotiations between the provincial government and the Ontario Medical Association? For example, why does the minister and the government continue to refuse to put on the table, on behalf of the people of Ontario, an end to extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the health care system as it is structured in this province is one that this government takes great pride in. At present, my goal is to arrive at a negotiated agreement with the physicians of this province.

2:20 p.m.

I think, though the honourable member will disagree, that it is very important to maintain for the profession the right to opt out. I believe, as the former government of Saskatchewan believed, that opting out on some basis is very important to the profession.

Mr. Foulds: They lost; remember?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can tell the member the new one will not opt them in.

Quite seriously, in accordance with all of the things we have been doing throughout this difficult period, I believe that protecting the professionalism of the profession is important. Respecting their position in society and the fact that they are not employees of government -- although some members think they should be -- is important. Therefore, I want to maintain a position where I can protect their right to opt out, rather than take it away.

I regret that the problems we are currently facing may undermine my ability to argue on behalf of the Ontario system when the federal minister proposes that we end opting out throughout the country and have all doctors opted in, as I fear she might next month. That would be unfortunate. It would be another in a series of steps that has brought doctors to the point of frustration at which they find themselves today, causing some of this job action.

The member and I will disagree but, in spite of the difficulties I am having with the profession and in spite of the extreme words the profession has used about this government and against me in the past few days, I respect its members' right to opt out, I respect their professionalism and I am prepared to fight for their right to opt out, rather than to take it away. My main fear is that the current trauma on the system will undermine my ability to fight and protect that opt-out right when I go to meet my counterpart in Ottawa at the end of May.

Mr. Foulds: In the minister's statement yesterday he made it very clear that he considered the government offer a very rich offer. I think $26,000 over two years was the figure used. Having spent that money on the average doctor in Ontario on behalf of the taxpayers and the patients of the province, does the minister not think it is a little bit much that those who do not think the additional $26,000 is enough -- and 15 per cent of them have already opted out or extra billed -- will continue to have that right after this very rich agreement? Is that fair to the taxpayers and patients of Ontario? The minister wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The patients of the province have the opportunity to select opted-in physicians.

Mr. Foulds: Not everywhere. Not unless they can come to Toronto -- and pay for the transportation costs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In response to that supplementary question, the Ontario Medical Association has to date lived up to its agreement with this government to ensure that where opted-in services are not available, it will arrange that opted-in rates are available and that any patient of this province who cannot obtain opted-in services will be provided services at opted-in rates and therefore will be fully remunerated, in accordance with the agreement worked out with us.

Notwithstanding the difficulties I have had over the past few weeks, I still believe the OMA means what it says. To date it has lived up to that agreement. If the member will forward to us any example where any citizen has been unable to obtain the services of an opted-in physician, we will look after it. We will forward it to the OMA and I am confident it will meet its obligations as promised to my predecessor a year and a half ago. Forward that information to us and we will see whether the member's general statement is accurate. I think it is inaccurate.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform the House whether his government, specifically his ministry, has taken any polls on the subject of opting in or opting out, or whether indeed it has taken any polls on any of the other subjects involved in the questions the minister has been asked in the Legislature today?

If the government has taken these polls, is the minister prepared to immediately share the results with the House?

Mr. Roy: Let's see your polls.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have the answer to any question the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) might ask in my briefing book, but I only bring it Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Mr. Roy: You have lots of material there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is no, my ministry has not been conducting public opinion polls or polled the public view on these topics during the course of the last few weeks.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister justify to this House not only the substantial increases he has offered to the medical profession in the province but also the right to charge extra on top of that in subsequent years? How does he justify that to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I have already indicated, and there is no point in taking more time of the House, why this government believes the option of opting out is important to maintain the system.

Mr. Foulds: Why do they bill the patients extra?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This government has concluded, like the former government of Saskatchewan, that having that option available to the physicians of this province is important to maintain. The system in Saskatchewan, by the way, as I recall it, called for patient-streaming instead of practice-streaming, which allowed a physician to say in his or her office, "I think you will be an opted-out patient and you will be an opted-in patient."

I must say I find that less tolerable than the kind of situation we have here, where the patient knows before he or she goes to a physician that he or she is going to an opted-in physician or an opted-out physician and can ascertain exactly what the amount of extra billing may or may not be. I think our situation is far more equitable and tolerable than the situation that was extant in Saskatchewan.

The member asked how I could justify the offer that is currently made to the physicians. I say to the member, because I know he is an advocate of things involving labour negotiations and sometimes compulsory arbitration -- he spoke of compulsory arbitration in terms of this dispute -- that it was not compulsory arbitration. Professor Weiler, a respected Harvard professor, was recommended by the OMA and agreed to by the government as a result of a very extensive analysis. He made a recommendation calling for 11 per cent protection against inflation plus a 3.25 per cent special adjustment on account of some economic adjustment owing to the early 1970s.

It is upon that basis and within that framework that this government feels it is justified in making the offer that is currently in front of the profession for acceptance. It is built upon and is consistent with the Weiler framework. As one party who entered into that agreement to use the fact-finding process and having agreed to accept Professor Weiler as the fact-finder, I feel I should take some guidance from the report that Professor Weiler brought down. That is what this government has done.

It was free to us to reject it entirely; and, indeed, the OMA not only has rejected it but also has even rejected the methodology, even though it is the same methodology he used last year; and they recommended he be used this year. None the less, I must say that I feel comfortable in terms of the government's position and its outstanding offer, because it fits the general framework of what Professor Weiler concluded after hearing extensively from both the OMA and the government over two years.

Professor Weiler showed due regard for the problems of the physicians of this province and the concerns of the taxpayers. I think that is an excellent justification for the government's position.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) but he seems not to be in the precincts. Therefore, I will go back to my old friend the Minister of Labour with a different question.

Can the Minister of Labour explain why his predecessor refused to supply Colin Lambert of the Canadian Union of Public Employees with four consultants' reports on the occupational health implications of the use of formaldehyde, diesel emissions, acrylonitrile and benzene in Ontario?

Is the minister aware that his predecessor's response was that the reports were currently under review and would not be released until the completion of the review? How can he expect bodies such as the health boards, the unions and management to review his exposure criteria without the proper background information?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in response to my aged friend from the other side of the House, I am not aware of the circumstances that he is describing to me today.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Given the fact that his ministry acknowledges that there are 60,000 chemicals in commercial use, with up to 1,000 new chemicals every year, does the minister not feel he has some responsibility to ensure that the review he is carrying out for this booklet, for these proposed standards, should be carried out in an atmosphere of trust and knowledge?

How can he expect that review to take place if he is unwilling to give those reviewing it, such as the Toronto board of health, the background documents? Why does his ministry refuse to give a union like CUPE the background documents so they can comment fully and knowledgeably on the standards he is proposing?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in the wisdom, integrity and credibility of my predecessor, the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). In fact, I learned a great deal about that wisdom in the short period of time during which I served as his parliamentary assistant. As a result, I am not about to jump to any conclusions concerning the reasons that information was not released. I would much prefer to look into it and make my own conclusions after I have all the facts.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Department of Public Health says, in its report based on the criteria being established, "In the report we have noted a number of important deficiencies and limitations which, in our opinion, undermine the usefulness of both the document and the criteria themselves, including the absence of any clear reference to substances considered by the ministry to be carcinogenic, despite the fact that a number have either been or are suspected to be carcinogenic." In view of this, what steps has the minister taken to address these very serious charges placed in the document prepared by the Toronto board?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, although I just indicated my respect for the former Minister of Labour that does not mean I am not going to investigate the matter brought to my attention today, that I am not going to draw my own assumptions, make my own announcements and come to my own conclusions. Once I have done so, I will take the appropriate action.

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has the answers to two previously asked questions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On April 19, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) alleged:

"There are approximately 3,000 applications for family benefits in Metropolitan Toronto, some as old as eight months. They are sitting at 2195 Yonge Street waiting for file numbers to be assigned." Mr. Speaker, there are not 3,000; the total, going back to include even part of January, is 1,600.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Wipe the smirk off, Albert. You won't like the rest.

There are none as old as eight months. Every one of the applications there has a file number on it; they have gone through the processing -- other than the ones that were received today.

In addition to that, there are not, as the honourable member alleged, "four case loads or approximately 1,200 to 1,400 recipients who are not being covered at this point." There is a vacancy for one field worker. The competition and the selection of that person are under way.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: On April 8 the same member said in the House that there are "150 children waiting for care for neuropsychology" at the regional children's centre in Windsor. That is categorically untrue. There are 150 children waiting for neuropsychological assessment, not care. The majority of these assessments are carried out on behalf of school boards; subsequent treatment programs are carried out within the educational system, not within the Windsor Western Hospital regional children's centre. The cause for this waiting list is that the local school boards do not have their own psychological testing system.

In February, 45 children, referred predominantly by family doctors, were waiting for psychological assessment. Treatment will be largely carried out by other agencies. There are 41 people waiting for social work assessment and once the assessments are carried out they will be referred to other agencies for treatment plans or short-term counselling.

There are five families waiting for out-patient parent group counselling from the centre's psychology department. This occurs because the treatment plan is carried out on a 12-week cycle and the families are waiting for the next cycle because one has already commenced.

There are 11 pre-adolescent children waiting for multidisciplinary in-patient treatment. They are being monitored on an out-patient basis and if anything develops, appropriate intervention will be provided by the centre.

The waiting list results in part from the centre's discharge planning process which is geared to the educational system. The children are scheduled to go back home at natural breaks such as Christmas, Easter, and so forth, and the next break is the start of the school year, in September.

Four adolescent boys are also waiting for multidisciplinary in-patient treatment. The waiting period is three months. It is partly the result of internal staffing difficulties at the centre.

In addition, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) asked about a particular three-year old child. Could I answer that one?

Mr. Speaker: For the moment we had better carry on with question period and we will get back to the minister's answer later.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the third matter he wishes to raise was tied in with my second question, and the member for Windsor-Riverside would like to hear it in context of this answer, if possible.

Mr. Speaker: We will get back to it later. I will recognize the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Let me ask my supplementary then, as far as he has gone on that section.

The information we received was from the centre. It was, whether he shakes his head or not. I cannot help it if we are receiving two different stories on that. Inasmuch as the information we received was from the centre, and I presume the Minister of Community and Social Services' information was from the centre, does the minister deny that the waiting lists are substantial; that there are people who have been waiting for service for six months or up to 12 months, in some cases, in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, sir.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No? Does the minister deny that? That is the allegation, not from us, but from people in the centre who are having to make those placements.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In view of the fact that at the centre the top two people say they have never had any requests for information from the member for Scarborough West or his colleague --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The admissions office.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not know where he got it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The admissions office.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I asked them if they gave it to the honourable members and they said, "We have never heard from them."

Mr. Speaker, I have gone to great lengths in this statement to deal with virtually every type of child who is on a waiting list. I deny --

Mr. Eakins: Such a warm heart, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do have a very warm heart.

Interjection

Hon. Mr. Drea: If I was as handsome as I was 15 years ago, I would.

Mr. Speaker, the question the honourable member addressed was he specifically charged that 150 children were waiting for neuropsychological care at that centre. I have demonstrated in this statement they are not.

The case of the three-year old child -- in fairness, I know you have made a ruling, but the honourable member has waited a long time for the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I would rather come back to that. Question period is moving on. I recognize the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Would you not agree that answer was of such a length that it amounted to a statement and that the period of time should be added to question period?

Mr. Speaker: No, I would not, because obviously the members want to extend that answer even as long as it was.

The member for Hamilton Centre with a new question.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: If the answer was so long it took up more than a substantial amount of question period, it should have been considered a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, with all respect. I just said we would come back to that because of the lateness. Now, the member for Hamilton Centre with a new question.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I think the Minister of Health has slipped out to accept one of his other phone calls. I suppose he is in the midst of imminent negotiations and that is why he cannot stay in the House.

Mr. Nixon: Here he comes.

Mr. Bradley: Here he comes. I see the door opening.

Mr. Breithaupt: The door opened and no one came in so Larry is here.

Ms. Copps: Frankly, I find the absence of the minister somewhat disturbing in view of the fact we have been trying to get down to the facts in this health issue for some weeks and the minister has chosen to absent himself on a number of occasions. Perhaps he is ducking his responsibilities in the House.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the question.

Ms. Copps: I will have to direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the hope she may express her concern to the minister. I am sure she is extremely concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on April Fool's Day, the Minister of Health promised the House that he and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario would monitor very closely the situation affecting the health of the people of this province. Yet, as of this morning, the college had not received, compiled or reported to the minister on cases of cancelled surgery affecting children, which the minister had ordered nearly three weeks ago. Likewise, despite the fact the doctors' boycott of medical advisory committees across the province has generally been effective, hospitals have not reported this or any other breach of their regulations --

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the question.

Ms. Copps: -- to the college, as of this morning. Can the Provincial Secretary for Social Development explain to us why the government seems to have lost its handle, not only on the situation of the walkout across the province but also on the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the honourable member that I think the government is handling this whole situation extremely well and that we have the support of the citizens of this province. They are well aware the Minister of Health is very concerned and is dealing with this situation in the way it should be dealt with, which is responsibly.

Ms. Copps: I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary for Social Development -- or the Minister of Health, who is present -- might tell us whether she agrees with the statement made by her colleague, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), in the Legislature yesterday when she said, according to Instant Hansard: "Neither the council nor any member of the medical association can have it both ways.

One is either a member of a self-governing profession, operating through a College of Physicians and Surgeons, with a council, establishing and maintaining your standard of service, or one is a member of an association that perhaps merits reconsideration for certification under the Ontario Labour Relations Board." That is a statement from one of the members of her own party and I wonder whether she would agree or disagree with it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the honourable member that, perhaps unlike members on that side, our members are free to express their own opinions. Perhaps the minister might like to direct that question to the Minister of Health.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the record will show that question was redirected.

Mr. Speaker: Was it redirected? I did not hear that; the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fact of the matter is the College of Physicians and Surgeons has assured us it can put together the necessary disciplinary panels comprised of members who have not participated in the job action today.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development said the Minister of Health is very concerned about the situation. He may be concerned but there are people who are in hospitals waiting long hours for even minor operations, such as my brother who has been waiting since this morning for an appendectomy. What can I tell him when I go to see him later on?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I missed the last part of that question. Could the member repeat it?

Mr. Di Santo: I told the minister he may be concerned, but what do I tell my brother when I go to see him in the hospital where he has been waiting since this morning for a minor appendectomy?

Mr. Speaker: The question was what should he tell his brother when he goes to see him because of a postponed minor appendectomy.

An hon. member: "Minor"?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should refer that question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). He might be in a better position to provide that answer.

The Ontario Medical Association has assured us that any emergency surgery will be conducted today. The member should indicate this to his brother and check with him as to his condition.

Mr. Di Santo: He has been waiting since nine o'clock this morning.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have never supported the job action and I do not think the OMA should be doing that sort of thing. But the member is asking me what to tell his brother. He should tell him that in spite of the fact the government has made a quite generous offer to the physicians of Ontario, his physician has decided to postpone the surgery for a day or two. As a matter of interest, the member should have his brother ask his physician if he knows what the government's latest offer is. I suspect he does not.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. It is with regard to a question asked by our deputy leader, on April 23, about the refusal by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union representative, Bob DeMatteo, to endorse as acceptable the report on the video display terminal situation at the Attorney General's office in old city hall. The minister responded to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) by saying, "I would also remind the honourable member that there is an advisory committee that is looking at this matter, including representation from the civil service union, and we hope to have this report very shortly."

Is the minister not aware that the Mr. DeMatteo who is not very happy with that report was his representative on that committee? In a letter to me, dated April 26, he said "Indeed, the task force has barely begun to demarcate the nature of the problem. At best the task force has been able to raise numerous unanswered questions. What is noteworthy is the absence of a long- term study of the health effects of VDT radiation."

Since the report from his ministry ignores the low-frequency radiation levels, which were quite high, does the minister not think it notable that his solution is not seen to be a solution by the union representative involved?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I gave you a note earlier, indicating I have an answer to a question asked earlier. It pertains to this same subject. Would it be permissible to provide that answer now? Would the member accept that?

Mr. Speaker: I was going to suggest you give the answer to that particular question. When we resume the rotation, we will come back to you for an answer if it is a different question.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is completely related, sir.

Mr. Speaker: All right; proceed then.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I undertook to respond to questions raised by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) regarding the ministry's report of its investigation into complaints of employees at the old city hall about possible health effects of ozone emissions from photocopy machines and nonionizing radiation from video display terminals.

The investigation was conducted by inspectors of the industrial health and safety branch with the assistance of staff from the occupational health branch and special studies and services branch, over a period of three days. The report was presented to and discussed with management and union officials last Thursday, April 22.

Because of the complexity of the issues this meeting was seen as the first of several with the employer and the workers to review the findings set out in the report. In fact, a further meeting is being held today at which the union will have the opportunity to express any disagreement with the methods or conclusions of the investigation.

2:50 p.m.

On completion of the investigation, no contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act were found and no orders were issued to the employer. However, because the carbon dioxide levels were above comfort guidelines the employer was advised to improve ventilation by providing more fresh air in all work stations. Also, because of some inconsistent readings from ozone concentrations, the employer was advised to establish preventive maintenance programs for all photocopy machines and to monitor levels on a regular basis.

With regard to possible radiation emissions from video display terminals, the levels detected were well below guideline limits. Dr. Harkins of the University of Toronto has been named by the Minister of Health to inquire into the medical effects alleged to be associated with the operation of the terminals in this work place by a number of the operators. I might add that ministry officers will closely monitor implementation, and the inspection cycle has been changed from a 12-month to a three-month frequency.

On Friday, the member for Port Arthur asked why I had not ordered the establishment of a joint health and safety committee at the old city hall. I am sure the honourable member recognizes that to be truly effective, the internal responsibility system depends upon the co-operation of both labour and management. This employer has agreed to participate in a joint health and safety committee. In my view, the voluntary commitment made by the employer, which I believe will be shared by the employee representatives, will lead to a stronger foundation and a more effective commitment to the viability of the committee's work.

Ms. Copps: Following along the statements made by the honourable member in this question period, will the Speaker not perceive that this is, in fact, a ministerial statement and we should add some more time to the question period. That is what we are here for, to ask and answer questions. The minister has his own time for ministerial statements.

Mr. Speaker: The minister asked the concurrence of the House, which was given. I heard voices, and he proceeded with that permission.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the voluntary committee, does the minister not recognize that a voluntary committee has no power under the act and that only a mandatory committee has that power? With the bad relations that exist right now between union and management there, would it not be far better to have a mandatory committee brought in by the minister's initiative and not rely on a voluntary committee which has no power at all under the act?

Second, if this is just the first in a series of meetings, why was the union representative so pressured to sign the documents and accept this report at the first meeting? Why was he not told that this was part of a longer discussion that would be going on in the future?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have been told that the union representative, Mr. DeMatteo, refused the voluntary offer of a joint committee. That is the information I have been given; I cannot attest to its accuracy. He said he wanted the committee ordered by me rather than having it done on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return the minister to the issue as it was first raised, that is, the serious concerns over the large number of miscarriages. Is the minister aware that while the radiation protection branch of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa claims the emission levels of VDTs is acceptable, the Atomic Energy Control Board which gives guidelines to the radiation protection branch has admitted several times that there is no such thing as a safe level of radioactive exposure?

Does the minister not think it appropriate in this case that he should order a full-scale study into what has happened in this matter and the reasons behind the miscarriages, rather than have what seems to be developing as an ad hoc answer to a problem that goes right to the heart of the whole controversy over VDTs?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would remind the honourable member that the Minister of Health appointed Dr. Harkins to do just what he is suggesting. The members opposite pointed out on Friday that Dr. Harkins had not signed a contract as yet. I understand that the Minister of Health signed a contract today and that Dr. Harkins is expected to sign tomorrow, and even though the contract has not been signed up until today and tomorrow, Dr. Harkins has already talked with officials on the task force of which Mr. DeMatteo is a member and he has already talked with other people about the VDTs and other related issues.

I would just like to take a moment more, if I might, to go back to a statement I made in the House some time ago in response to a question, and that is that all sorts of studies have been done and none has shown any relationship to these miscarriages. Despite the fact that none of them has shown any relationship there is an element of doubt, and as long as there is an element of doubt I believe it is my responsibility, the responsibility of my ministry and the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to continue to investigate these matters and, as the member suggests, to do full-scale inquiries. That is what we are attempting to do.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If I might say, what has happened is that because the answer to a question previously asked has been put in in response to my first question, I have essentially lost a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: You agreed, with all respect, to that procedure taking place.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I did not agree to using it.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you did. I saw you nod your head, with all respect.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not agree to give up one of my supplementaries just because he was going to try to incorporate his answer into this question --

Mr. Speaker: You did not give up a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- especially when he did not answer my first question.

Mr. Speaker: You will have to come back to that.

FUEL CONVERSION PROGRAM

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Approximately 9,100 vehicles are owned and operated by the province of Ontario; we will be replacing up to 2,400 vehicles of this fleet in 1982-83. Since the Ford Motor Co. has introduced a factory-manufactured, fully propane-fuelled vehicle in 1982, how many vehicles will we be committed to buying this year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I am unable to say exactly how many we will buy. I know we have bought one, because I am driving it.

Mr. Roy: There is a lot of hot air in that vehicle.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Every time I need the tank filled up I just pull around by the Liberal caucus.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are, I believe, trying to buy some of the factory-manufactured vehicles. We certainly are planning to continue with the conversion of vehicles, and I believe we are planning to convert another 400 to 500 vehicles this year.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the minister of propaganda is not here so I will ask my question of the Treasurer, who is responsible for funding this. It is an example of wasting money again.

Would the minister inform the House why it was necessary for his government to purchase five separate advertisements for five separate ministries in yesterday's business

section of the Globe and Mail?

Mr. Nixon: Including Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Bradley: Including Intergovernmental Affairs. "We're proud to be Canadian." It looks like a federal government ad; they are wasting money as well. "Working with you to keep Ontario beautiful."

Why was it necessary to buy five different, fairly large advertisements in the business

section of the Globe and Mail yesterday? Can he tell the House approximately how much of the taxpayers' money he spent on those ads?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.

3 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: At a time when the government is running a deficit of over $1.5 billion, when many of its agencies and ministries are strapped for funds to maintain a minimum program and when, for instance, health care workers across the province are asking for additional funds to restore the health care system to its former prominent place, how can the minister justify spending this kind of money on what amounts to political propaganda and self-congratulations?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the member recalls, the

section of the Globe and Mail where that information appeared was a special Report on Ontario. Those reports are done perhaps once or twice a year.

Mr. Nixon: There was a picture of the Treasurer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, there was, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker: Address yourself to the question, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am trying to address myself to the question, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to turn my eyes like that towards you, too.

In any event, the opposition has a great deal of fun with us when we keep the people of this province both informed and proud of the place they live. We are proud of Ontario and once in a while we are very pleased to let other provinces know.

Is the member listening now?

Mr. Bradley: Yes, I am listening.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought the member was an old school teacher.

An hon. member: A young school teacher.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, that is more like it, a young school teacher retired. I taught school too. I would suggest to the member that in the other provinces of Canada which receive and read the Report on Business quite carefully, it is not too bad to show our pride in Ontario once in a while.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE FUNDING

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Colleges and Universities regarding the crisis in the community colleges. The final report on college growth, a report which the minister up until this time has refused to make public, points out that in the year 1980-81, 50,000 students were refused entrance to community colleges because of the unavailability of space.

In view of the fact that the college presidents told me on a recent tour that the number of students who want to attend the colleges increased dramatically from last year to this year -- for example, Fanshawe College in London this year has 15,000 applications as compared to last year's 13,000; Algonquin, 17,000 this year, 12,500 last year; Centennial, 11,000 this year, 9,000 last year -- is the minister in agreement with the final report on college growth, which states that "the growth problem in the colleges is primarily one of suitable funding rather than client demand"?

Does she accept the recommendation that the government allocation to the colleges of applied arts and technology system be commensurate with the level of service desired and required by the government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there is not a final report of the growth examination of the college system at this point. There is a report which has been transmitted to the Council of Regents, which is not the final statement on the matter of examination of growth within the college system.

We are acutely aware of the growth within the college system, as I believe most citizens of Ontario are, and as a result of that awareness we have not only increased the allocation to the colleges this year by 12.2 per cent, but have also made available an additional one per cent in order to accommodate additional growth.

Mr. Grande: Is the minister saying the 12.2 per cent increase to the colleges is a result of the continuous underfunding in the last three or four years? Is she not aware that youth unemployment in Ontario stood at 13.6 per cent in January 1981 and 16.3 per cent in January 1982?

Does she not understand that this 2.7 per cent jump in the rate of unemployment is the equivalent of 29,000 young people across Ontario, and is this unacceptable situation a desire or a requirement of her government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In the first place, the figure of 50,000 related to students who applied but were not admitted to colleges may not be an accurate figure. Unfortunately, at this point there is not an overall computerized application mechanism for the college system, and many of those applications are duplicate applications for similar courses in several of the colleges of applied arts and technology.

I am not at all sure that the increase in youth unemployment is due directly to the fact that some of those students did not get into college courses to which they wanted to be admitted. There are many other factors involved and I think it is quite spurious to suggest that all those young people would be admitted to college programs, if indeed they had ever applied to the programs.

The youth unemployment matter has been of grave concern to this government, and a number of initiatives have been begun in order to address specifically the needs of young people who do not have the skills training nor have had the background motivation, apparently, to be employed appropriately. One of the areas in which we have been actively involved is the Ontario career action program, which is probably the most successful employment program for young people in Canada.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Di Santo moved, seconded by Mr. Grande, first reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for heritage languages instruction in Ontario. The bill sets forth a procedure for the establishment of a heritage languages program in order that a heritage language may be taught as a subject of instruction or as a language of instruction.

PROFITS FROM CRIME ACT

Mr. Renwick moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 90,

An Act to prevent Unjust Enrichment through the Financial Exploitation of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the bill makes moneys earned by criminals from the sale of their memoirs payable to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which is authorized to use the funds received in each case to satisfy judgements obtained by victims of the criminal.

3:10 p.m.

I believe this is the first occasion on which a bill has been tabled in a Canadian jurisdiction for the purpose of dealing with this type of exploitation. My thinking about it has been stimulated by the immunity to prosecution granted to Cecil Kirby by the Attorney General of Ontario (Mr. McMurtry) and by the circumstances surrounding the case of Clifford Olson in British Columbia.

I hope it will stimulate consideration by the Attorney General and others in Ontario, by those in other provincial jurisdictions and by the federal government so an adequate and uniform law can be developed relating to the principle embodied in this bill; namely, the criminal should not benefit from his crime.

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order, a point of clarification or a point of personal privilege --

Mr. Stokes: Or a point of view.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- or a point of view; it comes out of the answer of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) to one of my questions. I would like to clarify the record. He indicated there were only 1,600 cases of potential family benefits recipients waiting in the office at 2195 Yonge Street.

I have had it confirmed again by field workers that there were 3,000, not 1,600. They were from the Metropolitan Toronto region, not just the city of Toronto; I never said they were. There were 3,000 of them. He said there was none prior to January of this year. I will give him one specific case, because he likes specific cases. It is Maria Ociepka. She filed her application there on December 8, 1981.

The day after I raised my question in the House, the field workers were instructed to get every case of Toronto potential recipients off their case loads within three days so the minister could come back to the House and give that kind of bravado answer.

TRANSLATION SERVICES

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise to draw to your attention that certain members of this Legislature have to avail themselves of translation services to perform their duties as members. I recognize these services do not come directly under your purview but are provided by the government to the Legislative Assembly for the benefit of the members.

I draw to your attention and to the members of the House that I have been asking for translation services as early as March 4 of this year, as well as on March 30 and April 5, 8, 16 and 23. Those translations, required for me to communicate with my constituents, have not yet been provided by the government.

As the presiding officer of this assembly, it would be incumbent upon you to ensure the government does provide us with the facilities necessary to perform our duties as members. Translation services for my office are as important as a typewriter would be to many members.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege: I am sure the minister in charge of French-language services will look into this and see to it this situation is corrected. The minister will understand that for some of us these translation services are extremely important. If we were to communicate with people in our ridings in only one language we would not only communicate inadequately, but it would also be an insult to a majority in our ridings.

When my colleague talks about waiting, in this case he is talking about translation of certain documents and material dating back over two months. I think most members would find it absolutely intolerable. I am sure the minister will agree it is intolerable to have to wait two months before communicating with one's electorate about what is going on here at Queen's Park by way of communique, press release or otherwise.

That is the problem my colleague is experiencing. That is a problem some of us experience when trying to get translation services.

I am sure the minister will look into the situation to see to it there is an adequate response. I am sure the people in the translation services are doing their very best but, if they do not have adequate staffing or manpower, they will be overworked. If they are not able to produce for members within a relatively short period of time, it frustrates the very purpose of having the translation.

I trust the minister will look into the matter and respond with the same dispatch as when he is putting in government ads or things of that nature.

Mr. Swart: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The French-speaking citizens of this province, and I have many of them in my area, question the sincerity of the government in the provision of French services. I suggest that if they cannot get a prompt reply in their own language, even from members of the Legislature, they have some reason to doubt that there is adequate provision of French services in many other areas.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be most happy to look into this and report to the members. I think I read in Max Yalden's latest report that they did a spot survey in one of the counties of this province and found that the services from the Ontario government far exceeded those provided by the federal government, which is officially bilingual.

Mr. Speaker: As honourable members have quite correctly pointed out, it is a matter beyond my jurisdiction and authority.

Mr. Nixon: Send it to the Office of the Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: The government has indeed taken notice and I hope will respond.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I saw you giving me a double whammy when I interjected that perhaps this matter might be taken on by the Office of the Assembly. It seems clear to me it is a matter that might concern the Office of the Assembly and the Board of Internal Economy.

It occurs to me that many very competent French-language people would be available, even students would be delighted to have a few days' employment right now, or even during the summer if there is a backlog of translations to be performed. Since the government is somewhat reluctant, maybe we ought to show a little initiative ourselves in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member could raise this at the appropriate time.

Mr. Nixon: What could be more appropriate?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to petitions?

Agreed to.

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition pursuant to subsection 33(

b) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 20 members, requesting that the annual report for the Ministry of the Environment for the year ending March 31, 1981, be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Mr. Speaker: In view of an earlier ruling which I have made, I will have to ask the table whether or not this is in order.

It is not a statutory report; therefore, I am afraid it is out of order.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the Speaker what remedy he would suggest for the opposition members or back-bench government members when a report that is brought forward by an emanation of government, maybe even a ministry, cannot be referred to a committee because of your

interpretation of the rules and your ruling that the thing is not referable, not being a report called for by the statutes?

We seem to have a very difficult time getting the procedural affairs committee to consider any changes, since the Conservative members on the committee are so enamoured of the status quo that they will not consider any changes. It leaves us in a position where reports laid upon the table cannot be referred to the various committees using the rules of the House, because they are not, as you interpret them, the statutory reports that are not forthcoming from some of the ministries.

What are we supposed to do about this? This is a real impasse which is unacceptable.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you will recall when we were discussing this issue last week I asked if you could find out the grounds on which certain ministries have statutory reports. There should be some consistency coming from government as to these statutory requirements.

I am not sure why one ministry has a statutory requirement and the next ministry does not. Surely it is time the government House leader indicated to us that either there are going to be amendments made to the various acts where there are no statutory requirements or we get some indication why some are and some are not a statutory requirement.

3:20 p.m.

I understand in one of the new bills coming forward the minister himself is now prepared to make a statutory requirement for that to have a report. But there are too many, and I think there is something strange when some lead ministries have a report and other lead ministries do not. There has to be some consistency on what is reported to the Legislature and what can be considered.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on the same point if I might: As the recipient of your judgement the other day to accept mine as the last you would allow through, I would first like to thank you for that judgement, which I thought was most fair.

I also rise to speak to the problem my House leader is raising at this point, because it strikes me we must have some sort of rationale for why some ministries are not included, or have amendments brought in quickly to make sure all ministries automatically have to give a report that is covered by statute, or have some understanding from the House leader of the government party that he would consider it acceptable for us to make these kind of referrals until such time as those adjustments are made, so that your hands are not tied, as you said they were when you made the ruling on mine.

I would be very pleased to hear if the government House leader would indicate that, as far as he is concerned, there is no rationale for exceptions, and that until we can make redress through legislation we should at least have his go-ahead that those kind of petitions might be brought forward by unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as you properly indicated, this matter was addressed by you last week. I have not had time to complete my study of the matter. First, it strikes me that the committee of this House, supported by all parties when they rewrote the rules, put in the words "statutory reports." I have not had time to find out exactly what they meant, but in their wisdom they did include the words "statutory reports."

It behooves us to find out what the thinking was behind that. When that is done, either the procedural affairs committee or all the House leaders should look at the matter and decide whether the simple thing to do would be to remove the word "statutory" from the standing orders.

It is certainly a much longer, more complicated and, I think, needless task to suggest amending all the various bills that provide for reports of one kind or another or, indeed, that do not provide for any annual report and yet a ministry makes that report. I think that is the process we are now going through.

I would offer an interim solution to my friend who has put the petition which has been rejected because it does not conform to our standing orders. If it is Hydro matters my friend wishes to have looked at by the committee, I think he will find the Hydro annual report is on the list that the Clerk of the House has as a statutory report, and perhaps he would like to refer the Hydro report down, I think I am correct in that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if we are looking for a solution at this particular time we might use the one you used at the last presentation of a report and ask for unanimous consent for it to be referred. If any member felt the rules were being unnecessarily broken under those circumstances, then surely there would be no complaint.

I would suggest to you, sir, this is one of the major ministries of government, the Ministry of the Environment, and there should certainly be a statutory requirement for a report. Perhaps the minister himself will remedy that in the future. But as you indicated, it would be possible for the report to be referred if there were no objections from any member of the House.

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, since you do have unanimous consent of the House to revert to petitions, pursuant to standing order 33(

b) of the Legislative Assembly, the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, tabled in the House on October 22, 1981, sessional paper 227, 1981, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

Mr. Speaker: That petition is indeed in order. It is on the list.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to the members that the procedural affairs committee has looked at this particular problem on several occasions and has made two specific points. One of these was in our jurisdiction, and that is the standing orders part of it; the other was not.

We said that all ministries should, by statute, have to table an annual report; that is not within our jurisdiction and we cannot change it through the standing orders. Having said this, we then said the standing orders should read that these statutory reports can be referred.

In addition, we looked at all the government agencies and indicated that there ought to be some uniformity there, that where agencies are rather substantial in size their annual reports ought to be considered statutory reports, they ought to be put in here and they could therefore be referred by petition.

So the procedural affairs committee has looked at this matter in previous years, and that was our three-party recommendation to the House. Clearly the intent was that all of these reports from the ministries would be considered statutory, and we would have no technical problem.

What has happened is that the standing orders moved by procedural affairs got carried in the House but the recommendation about making these statutory, which would have to be done ministry by ministry, has not been subsequently carried out.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The standing orders, as all honourable members know, are very clear on this topic. However, it is in the hands of the members themselves to make changes. It has been suggested that unanimous consent may be considered. I will, therefore, ask if we can have unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in a very significant change like this, which could be assumed to be a precedent, I think my friend will agree that if we wish unanimous consent we usually consult ahead of time. I would like to reserve any agreement on unanimous consent until I have at least had time to look over the matter and consider it.

Mr. Conway: Would you like to adjourn for a couple of weeks?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I do not want to adjourn for a couple of weeks, but the member knows that if we are asking for unanimous consent we usually at least consult. The matter has now come up and the Speaker has ruled on it. In fairness, we should have time to consider some of the matters I raised, and then we can see whether we want to proceed on Thursday.

Mr. Stokes: Can I move that unanimous consent be accorded the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) to introduce that petition under

section 33(b)?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think you can. I think that is out of order; in fact, I know it is. Obviously, unanimous consent is not going to be given, so I am therefore going to abide by the wishes of the House. I hope the House leader or others may be able to get together and resolve this problem.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the House leaders meeting on this or the government House leader meeting with his caucus --

Mr. Speaker: Same topic?

Mr. Breaugh: On the same topic --

Mr. Speaker: You have already spoken. Sorry.

Mr. Breaugh: Just a small point of order, then.

Mr. Speaker: A new point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: Procedural matters, I would think, would quite properly stand referred to the procedural affairs committee, not to a meeting of the House leaders or a meeting of the government caucus. If you are going to allow this to continue I would ask you to ask, as you by precedent have done on several other occasions, that the matter be referred to the procedural affairs committee on Thursday morning.

Mr. Speaker: I did not indicate or want to indicate or give direction as to where it should or should not go; I hope the House itself will resolve the problem.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 24, 25, 26, 77, 80, 81 and 92 and the answers to questions 78 and 79 standing on the Notice Paper (see Hansard for Friday, April 30).

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of Mr. Walker, I move second reading of Bill 38,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Mr. Speaker: In the absence of Mr. Walker, Mr. Lane moves second reading of Bill 38. Is it the pleasure --

Mr. Nixon: No. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Surely, when a bill to establish a ministry is before the House for debate in principle, one might expect that the minister himself would be present. I have a high regard for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and I hope that he does become a minister some day, but he is not the minister now.

We have a new minister and a new ministry, and the debate on this bill is going to be a discussion of what we think the goals and administrative procedures of the ministry should be. I believe the minister should be here if we are going to proceed with second reading of this bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, like my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), and with all respect for my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, we are creating a new ministry and asking a parliamentary assistant to carry that.

I find it outrageous that the government is attempting to create a new ministry with tremendous ramifications because of the complexity of what we are undertaking and the type of portfolio we are talking about, and the minister is not even here. Maybe he is off selling another White or something like that to some multinational, but we find it pretty depressing that we are asked to proceed and put a parliamentary assistant on the spot when it should be the minister. The whole thing is totally ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The government House leader is going to call another order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If my friends do not wish to proceed with the parliamentary assistant -- it is not a new procedure; a number of parliamentary assistants carry bills.

Mr. Nixon: We are expressing our objections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. I am a very reasonable person. I will be happy to move on to the 22nd order.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved second reading of Bill 41,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour and a privilege today to present to this House Bill 41,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I hope that the honourable members, as they examine this bill, will reach the conclusion that the establishment of the new ministry by the government was a progressive and a forward step.

It is a step that recognizes the fact that the vital and important programs of tourism and recreation have come of age; a step that foresees a rich maturity for both of them as they build upon the natural affinities and share complementary goals.

They are both very busy, very complex areas, and I have no desire to oversimplify the task being faced by the ministry. In its clearest terms, the new ministry is about people. On the one hand, people are being encouraged to live to the fullest degree of their energies and talents and to take full advantage of our natural landscape to do so. On the other hand, it is about the pride these people have about their lifestyles in this great and beautiful province and their desire to share this richness with others from around the world.

These are perhaps the two basic themes around which the provincial government in the past dozen years has nurtured the impressive and effective programs in both tourism and recreation that we see today. I would like to take a moment to speak of the recreation side of the ministry first, because that is the area with which, at this point, I am most familiar.

I must say that as Minister of Culture and Recreation for more than three years I spoke with justifiable pride about the many varied sports, fitness and recreation programs developed by that ministry, and the excellent results they achieve. I think every member of this House knows on a firsthand basis in his own area just how much is being done in programs and facilities for sports and recreation in this province and how important these are to the quality of life of all of our citizens.

Let me bring it back into quick focus. In 1972, there were only 39 sports governing bodies participating in the amount of $331,000, which was provided by the provincial government. In the past fiscal year 72 sports governing bodies, almost double the number that existed back in 1972, have shared $4 million in direct operating grants for administration purposes; a further $1.8 million in administrative support through the Ontario Sports Administration Centre; and a further $5 million in Wintario grants for various programs.

I could add up equally impressive sums for the many other aspects of the recreation side of the ministry. I think there is ample evidence of the success of our efforts in the careers of Steve Podborski, Alex Baumann, Al Hackner's curling team and even professionals such as Wayne Gretzky. What other province can in a single season produce winners of three widely contested world championships and field several other world-class athletes?

I believe we have arrived on the world stage, and it is the commitment of the new ministry to keep us there. As we help the talented reach out for world recognition, we have no intention of neglecting the purely recreational side of sports; neither will we neglect to provide every opportunity for the disabled and others to develop their abilities to the fullest.

I am extremely proud of what we as a government have achieved to date, and I am looking forward to the opportunities and the challenges that the framework of the new ministry presents to enrich and extend our programs. In this regard, I met recently with the members of my parks and recreation advisory committee and gave those dedicated men and women my personal assurance that their needs will not be neglected in the new ministry and that they will find their programs and interests enriched by this union.

I believe this new ministry provides us with a number of truly golden opportunities. Not only do I see an environment where tourism and recreation can flourish individually, but also I see opportunities for both sides of my ministry to help and complement one another. Tourism can assist recreation; conversely, recreation can assist tourism. It is an exciting new dimension.

One obvious area that has been facilitated by our new partnership is the tourism development of our government attractions. The new ministry encompasses many of the government-operated attractions, including Ontario Place, Minaki Lodge, Old Fort William, Huronia historical sites, the Thunder Bay ski jump complex and the three parkway commissions: the Niagara Parks Commission, the St. Clair Parkway Commission and the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, including Old Fort Henry. The potential marketing development and operational benefits that can accrue to these attractions, by working closely with the other sections of my ministry and with each other, are substantial.

Another concept we will be exploring is the packaging of vacation experiences. I these will utilize existing and new recreational facilities.

Turning again to the quality of life that makes Ontario such an attractive place to visit, I hope municipal recreation departments will realize that they have found an ally in the tourism industry as they seek ways to improve the recreation components of their towns and villages. I believe it is a very powerful ally.

I am happy to report that 1981 was the best year ever for tourism in Ontario. Tourism now is firmly in second place, next only to manufacturing, as a creator of wealth and jobs for our citizens at all levels of our economy. Total revenues reached a record $8.8 billion last year, an increase of 16 per cent or $1.2 billion over 1980. By contributing $1.3 billion in provincial tax revenues, and as a primary creator of jobs, tourism has assured its place as a major pillar of our economy.

3:40 p.m.

Tourism's impact on the lives of all of us will continue to grow. It has been predicted that by the year 2000 tourism will be the largest industry in this province. But it will not achieve that rank by itself; it will need all the professional and promotional help it can get. Our tourist operators deliver a high level of service to the travelling public, but they realize they are in a highly competitive world market where other equally astute jurisdictions are starting to reach out for shares in the tourism boom of the future.

The leaders of the tourism industry I have met in the few weeks I have been in the portfolio have nothing but positive expectations from this new ministry. They recognize that the government has always placed a high priority on tourism and that it has played a leadership role through a broad base of programs and marketing strategies such as the highly successful "Ontario -- yours to discover!"

We reached the solid position we are now in because the government and the industry worked as partners. The new ministry solidifies that partnership and opens, for both parties, tremendous opportunities and challenges in terms of the industry itself and the quality of life of all our citizens.

In the months and years ahead, the new ministry will work with the industry to design, develop and deliver policies and programs that meet today's needs and anticipate tomorrow's promise. We will continue to emphasize advertising and promotion in key domestic and international markets. We will refine our programs in the areas of travel counselling, tourism consulting and financial assistance for improvements in the tourist infrastructure. We will undertake a formal advocacy role, providing a strong voice for tourism as well as recreation as new government policies and programs are developed.

As I noted, the industry is delighted at the recognition of its importance that the creation of the new ministry implies. It is anxious to reward that confidence with results. As the new minister, I intend to give it every opportunity to do so.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party on the introduction of Bill 41,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I am sure all members of this Legislature are aware that it is the one bill we strongly support, and I extend my congratulations to the government for finally moving to establish this ministry.

Members will recall that four years ago, when I chaired a task force on tourism across this province, this was one of the recommendations of our task force.

Mr. Nixon: Most of their policy comes from your report.

Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to say that most of the recommendations from that report have now been incorporated by the government. This is the last and the one major part of our report which I am pleased to see adopted.

At that time, I recall sending a copy of our task force report to the Premier (Mr. Davis). His reply was that it was not feasible, that it would lose the thrust if they separated Industry and Tourism. Even the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), was opposed to the separation of Industry and Tourism, but I feel it has been an excellent move. Having Industry and Tourism under one minister was too powerful, and the separation is going to see an increased importance placed on tourism in this province. I believe we are probably the last province in Canada to give tourism the profile and the priority it deserves.

Mr. Riddell: We are the 10th and last province, period.

Mr. Eakins: Regardless of that, I am pleased to see the government has finally moved and has established its own ministry.

I agree with the minister that tourism has the potential to be the number one industry in Ontario by the year 2000. At the time of our task force tour across this province, tourism had declined a great deal. Our share of the national deficit in tourism was high indeed. It now has been reduced somewhat to about 40 or 45 per cent of what happens across Canada. I believe we still have a deficit of something like $500 million as our share.

I am pleased to support this bill, but I have a few thoughts I wish to leave with the minister. Now that we have the new ministry, he has an opportunity to assume a leadership role. I hope the minister's role will be not just an administrative one, because it will lose the thrust and will do nothing for tourism in this province.

Now that we have our own ministry, I expect the minister to assume that leadership role and to make sure the other ministries in his government are aware of the importance of tourism. One in 10 Canadians is employed in tourism and it is something like a $9-billion industry in Ontario. It is important that the minister assume this leadership role.

Recently, the ministry has been taking a look at the tourism studies conducted across this province to date. I believe a great deal of improvement can be made in these studies. I know different areas have been studied, but I do not believe the people who are commissioned to do these studies are doing as complete a job as they should be. They are not talking to the heads of municipal councils, the people who are involved in the municipal studies. In future, when another study of tourism potential is commissioned, I hope the minister will take a look at this area.

I know there was some concern about the Haliburton-Peterborough study. Some people in the Minden area were concerned that many of the people who are very much involved in the tourism industry were never consulted.

As one of the main tourism spokesmen in this Legislature, I practically had to ask to be interviewed myself. Surely, if we are going to look at the tourism potential of this province, we should be looking to the members who are elected to serve here. There can be a lot of improvement in this area. I know the minister is taking a look at the effectiveness of the studies to date, and I think this can be improved a great deal. I ask him to take a personal look at that.

I also ask the minister, in assuming his role of leadership, to consider the effect of other ministries on tourism. I specifically mention the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I believe the road patterns of this province should be looked at in the sense of what they are going to do for our tourism industry.

For instance, there is the establishment of the project in Maple which I think is going to do a great deal for many areas because it will bring thousands of people to this province. But suppose those people want to go to other areas, such as Peterborough, Lindsay, Haliburton or areas east; there is no road access east or west other than heading straight south again, going down to Highway 401 and then finding their way to eastern Ontario.

The establishment of Highway 89 from highways 401 and 400 to highways 12 and 7 is going to serve that area somewhat, but I ask the minister to take a look at the road patterns in his work with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

I also ask him to take a fresh look at the road signs, which leave something to be desired. The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) will say, "We only sign the destination communities of those highways." However, along those highways there are major tourist areas.

For example, when travelling on Highway 35 south of Lindsay, one comes to Highway 7 and Bobcaygeon, one of our important summer areas. Many of the people in this Legislature visit that area. Yet until one turns east on Highway 7, one does not know that Bobcaygeon even exists.

3:50 p.m.

I feel that more of our highways should be signed to indicate the importance of tourism. I would ask the minister to review that in his interministry meetings.

He must give a lot of consideration to information centres and rest centres. The rest centres on our highways are lousy; in many areas they are almost nonexistent. They need to be improved and updated. We also need to improve the information centres in this province, not only in main areas at the border crossings but also in other parts of the province, because this is a very big province. I ask that he review this.

It is important too, when talking with his colleague in the Ministry of Natural Resources, that he take a look at the importance of stocking our lakes. Millions of tourism dollars are brought into this province through the fishing and wildlife opportunities here.

I have already questioned the minister on the sales tax on accommodation which I feel, because of the time when it was put on, is going to be something of a setback to those who are in the tourism and hospitality industry. With problems in the other parts of our economy, this is one area where the sales tax should have been left off or reduced drastically until other segments of our economy could show improvement.

The meal tax is something that is absolutely not right. We tax meals costing more than $6 at 10 per cent; it is the only area where we tax at more than seven per cent. One can buy a fur coat or other luxury commodities with a tax of seven per cent, yet if one pays more than $6 for a meal, one must pay 10 per cent tax. I hope the minister will use his influence with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to lower the tax and raise the $6 minimum to at least $8. I think it is only being fair to this great industry, our second largest industry.

I want to say to the minister that one of the important programs is the "We treat you royally" campaign, but it is only important if training takes place. I have watched workers at our hotels and lodges sporting the "We treat you royally" buttons which the ministry sends out in the summertime. One can tell when spring comes, because they put on these "We treat you royally" buttons. Take a look at the people wearing them. Some of them never smile, never speak to a person. I think the training program has to be updated.

The program carried on for a year or possibly two years and then it was dropped. I think the "We treat you royally" approach is going to be one of the keys to the success of this industry in this province. It is fine to promote the industry, but if we do not know how to treat the tourists royally the way they do in other jurisdictions, then it does not mean a great deal. This is one area where I hope his new ministry will take a lead to make sure that training is not just something for one or two years. It has to be ongoing every year, because it is one of the very important parts of our industry.

I mentioned the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and I want to leave this with the new Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I believe tourism was affected to a degree last winter when the Ministry of Natural Resources cancelled funding to our snowmobile clubs, because many of these trails were developed by volunteers who depended on that funding to make the trails available to all people in Ontario.

In many ways, the user fee has not worked out. I recommend to the minister that, in co-operation with his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications, he urge that 50 per cent of the annual snowmobile registration fees go to snowmobile clubs for trail maintenance programs. I think 50 per cent of the registration fees should support our snowmobile clubs.

I also suggest to him that in the development of this bill he should include a provision for an annual report to the Legislature. I think that is very important indeed.

There is one area in which I am somewhat disappointed; that is, the announcement of a feasibility study of a convention centre at Morrisburg. Why is this the first major announcement made since the establishment of this new ministry that has not been accompanied by a press release to inform us of the minister's out-of-town statement? Will he explain, in regard to this proposal, how land designated under the St.

Lawrence Parks Commission Act for parks, and therefore for the use of the public of Ontario, can be suddenly turned over, possibly to an international corporation to construct, develop and manage a major convention centre? I would like to hear him enlarge upon that, because I think it is very important.

I also want to know how this will affect the current tax-exempt status of such lands owned by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission. To what extent was input from the local hotel-motel operators, other businessmen, chambers of commerce and municipal representatives involved in the decision to go ahead with the study which, if it materializes, will have a more profound impact on the local establishments than any other project I can imagine?

I know the announcement was made yesterday and, to my recollection, the only awareness in the area was a call to a little party, or a brunch on the Sunday, to announce what was taking place. I think it is very important, in regard to this feasibility study, that we examine the effect it is going to have on the other urban areas. Why would such a centre not be built in a more urban area, where there is a spinoff to help the local business people?

Mr. Nixon: Closer to Cornwall.

Mr. Eakins: Closer to Cornwall, Brockville and other areas. I ask the minister to bring us up to date on this and on why no minister's statement was forthcoming.

Those are a few of the questions I would like the minister to answer. Other than that, I fully support the establishment of this ministry. I wish the minister well. I have appreciated his co-operation to date. I am looking forward personally to learning more of his ministry. I think I understand a great deal of the tourism sector; I appreciate the opportunity to know more of the recreation area. It is a very important part of this province.

I have had the pleasure of meeting many of his personnel. I think he has excellent people in his ministry, and I think they are ready to do the job. Now that he has his own ministry, I hope that he will show the leadership of which I know he is capable and that we will see an increase in the tourism potential of this province.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say and make quite clear to all members of the assembly is that after a good deal of study of the triministerial reorganization -- that is, the dismembering of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Ministry of Culture and Recreation as we knew them and their formation into three new ministries, Trade and Industry, Tourism and Recreation and Culture and Citizenship -- after a good deal of anguish and study of this reorganization, the New Democratic Party will be voting against the setting up of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation as envisaged by Bill 41.

We say this for a variety of what we consider to be legitimate reasons and apprehensions about this move. I hark back to the debate in 1974 when the Premier (Mr. Davis) made the announcement, giving what were generally accepted to be cogent and persuasive reasons for setting up the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

4 p.m.

Some very dedicated civil servants had the responsibility for program delivery in that ministry and laboured hard and long after it came into being in 1974. During those seven years they were getting a handle on the programs under that ministry, and forming their ideas of their mandate and how to liaise with their client groups in Ontario for the delivery of those programs. I worked closely with members of that ministry, as did other members of this House, not only here in Toronto but out in the various regional offices throughout the province. I think they offered yeoman service.

Mr. Doug Fisher, who was commissioned by this minister, authored a report titled, The Policy and Programs of the Ontario Government for Recreation, Sport and Fitness in 1981. Members may have read that report. He was not asked to comment on a proposed reorganization but to address himself to the delivery of existing programs affecting recreation, sport and fitness under the former Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

I think the ministry came out reasonably well in the critique done by Mr. Fisher, although I understand the report was not widely circulated. As a matter of fact, when I was given the responsibility for being the critic for this ministry and tried to get a copy of it, the only place it was available, generally, was the legislative library. Obviously it is the only copy of that report that they have, because one or two of my colleagues have tried, unsuccessfully, to get a copy of it there. I do not know whether it is by accident or by design that there are so few copies of that report around.

I took the liberty of phoning Mr. Fisher and asking him what he thought about the reorganization, which has occurred relatively soon after that major critique was commissioned. I do not presume to speak for Mr. Fisher but he seemed flabbergasted to learn that there was to be this complete reorganization, a separation of recreation from culture, without any public consultation and without any input. That was the sentiment expressed to me in general terms by Mr. Fisher.

I took the time and trouble to consult with two other groups in the province, the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario and the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario, to ask them what they felt about this reorganization after the fact rather than before the fact. As we proceed with this piece of legislation, which will certainly go to committee of the whole House, it may be of sufficient import to those client groups in the field that it should go to a standing committee of the Legislature, outside the House, so those people can come before it and express their reservations.

I know they have done that privately to the minister. I would not be nearly as critical as I am going to be this afternoon if it were not for the apprehensions those two groups expressed to me, as they obviously have expressed them privately to this minister. It may be we would have had good reason to support this legislation.

For the benefit of members of the House, I think I have a responsibility to bring to their attention the concerns expressed to me by those client groups out in the province. They felt that, after seven years, culture and recreation was just beginning to get a sense of direction and was working well with the dedicated people in the various branches of the former Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

I think it is fair to say the tourist industry seems to be pleased that tourism has come out from under the umbrella of the Industry ministry generally and, as a result of that, hopes tourism will be given a much higher profile than it enjoyed with the previous Ministry of Industry and Tourism. However, the people in the recreation field, under the reorganization, feel they will be playing second fiddle to the tourism industry. I hope that will not be the case, but that was the reservation they expressed to me about this reorganization.

Another reservation expressed to me by the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario was that the Parks Assistance Act should be administered by the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation rather than left within the domain of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

When they mentioned that to me, I busied myself and got a copy of the Parks Assistance Act to find out why they were so apprehensive about it remaining with the Ministry of Natural Resources when, in effect, this ministry, under the

schedule attached to Bill 41, indicates that the Niagara Parks Commission, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and all of those mentioned in the minister's opening statement would fall within the purview of this new ministry. The Parks Assistance Act, which does not generally deal with provincial parks and so on, implies they will not.

4:10 p.m.

The Parks Assistance Act deals with a ministry of this government providing funds to municipalities. In the event there is not a municipal organization, it even provides for other groups with a legal entity to negotiate through the Parks Assistance Act for funding for the establishment and maintenance of small municipal parks.

Why do I take so much time to explain why I think the Parks Assistance Act should be under this ministry? It is because a few weeks ago in this House the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) filed a series of reports and policies indicating the direction that ministry would go in redefining policies and strategies for improvement of the provincial parks system.

In so doing, one small provincial park in my riding is going to be phased out. Inwood Provincial Park, about 90 miles west of the city of Thunder Bay near the hamlet of Upsala, is going to be phased out because it does not identify any unique, natural beauty or characteristic. All that can be said about it is that it is a beautiful little provincial park. Because it does not contain pictographs or a lot of the things that, for whatever reason, people think they should have within the confines of a provincial park, it is going to be phased out.

This means we will wipe out the only provincial park within an area of 100 miles of this little hamlet along Highway 17. It provides an excellent opportunity for people who live in rural northern Ontario to go and spend an evening or a weekend. It is a facility they have used to great advantage in the past and will continue to use if the opportunity is made available to them. Obviously, it is not going to be made available to them if the Ministry of Natural Resources has its way.

To get back to the tourism aspect again, it is a drawing card for small retail outlets in that general area. Because it does not contain any unusual physical characteristics, it is going to be phased out. I think it is important that if a new ministry like this is going to work, it is going to have to appreciate and protect those values that, for a variety of reasons, are so important to people across Ontario. I would liken Inwood Provincial Park on the outskirts of Upsala to the Kortright Centre for Conservation just a few miles north of the city here.

I would liken it to High Park in downtown Toronto, which is a facility where people can go and do the variety of things they are able to do within its confines.

But we have the Ministry of Natural Resources dealing with the operation and maintenance of something like 130 provincial parks throughout Ontario, and it sets up criteria that generally apply in a sort of global fashion as to what constitutes a park in the minds of the Minister of Natural Resources and of all the research geographers and all the planners with all their professional jargon. I would like any of them who have suggested that park be phased out to go and take a look at the beauty that is there, and the impact it has on the economy of that little area.

That will not be possible if we leave it with the Ministry of Natural Resources because we do not fit the mould, the clear-cut mould it has for all its kinds of park categories. That is why I think the Parks Assistance Act should be within this ministry rather than the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Another apprehension these groups I contacted have is that the cultural components, which are a large part of recreational programs run by municipalities and small local groups, remain with Tourism and Recreation, as should libraries. We heard the new Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) explain the rationale for cutting off certain responsibilities that were formerly with Culture and Recreation. Some of them will stay there for reasons yet unexplained, and others will be moved over for reasons yet unexplained.

When one talks to municipal recreational directors, here in the city of Toronto or in Sault Ste. Marie or Kitchener or places like that, just when they had a mindset as to where they would go for the kind of assistance they need within the government of Ontario, they find now they might have to go to a variety of sources. The minister knows in all his travels that if one goes to Schreiber or any one of the other 700 municipalities in the province, things happen there in a way in which they do not necessarily happen here in Metropolitan Toronto. Let me explain.

If a municipality, through its recreation committee, wants to set up a sports program, a fitness program, a recreational program or a cultural program, it is usually done by one group in that municipality, quite often in the same building, because they have to try to effect economies of scale, and they have to make the best use of scarce tax dollars in order to provide culture, recreation, sports, fitness, handicrafts, various courses that are made available by small local recreational groups in their program.

4:20 p.m.

I hark back to a memorandum that was sent to all members of this assembly, signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), dealing with the administration of the Wintario grant program. I am going to quote just a portion of that joint release:

"Municipalities and community groups applying for Wintario grants will continue to be served by a so-called" -- and this is the word of the two ministers -- "one-window system through the community program offices in the province. These offices, operated by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, will be staffed by MTR consultants involved with sports, fitness and recreation and MCC consultants involved in citizenship and culture. These consultants have a single mandate to serve the client in the communities of the province."

I think I have a right to assume from that joint communique or memorandum that consultants from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and consultants from the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture will be in the same building at the same location. Is it so important that the consultants from the two new ministries be housed in the same facility so it will be a one-stop shopping operation?

That raises questions, certainly in my mind, and it should raise questions in the mind of anyone who is interested in why we need two ministries in the first place. It was working very well before. We had Culture and Recreation. Why do we now need Tourism and Recreation and Citizenship and Culture? Those are the answers that people are looking for out there -- that is, the client groups I spoke to.

What about libraries? It is becoming increasingly difficult for small communities -- I can only speak with some degree of knowledge about the problems facing small libraries, the regional libraries and the mobile libraries -- to bring the level of service that people up there think they have a right to. I know that the funding mechanism which is in operation at present just barely meets the minimal requirements of small libraries in northern Ontario. I wonder about splitting this off to Citizenship and Culture as opposed to leaving it with Recreation, because reading is a form of recreation.

In many communities in northern Ontario the two are synonymous, and I really do not know what was the rationale for splitting it off in the first place.

I realize that only the agencies, such as the Ontario Arts Council, the Royal Ontario Museum and the McMichael gallery, are going to Citizenship and Culture. I wonder how the government is going to rationalize that and how they are going to allocate funds on a realistic and fair basis between the two ministries.

In northern Ontario, where we have only 15 members out of 125 members representing four fifths of the geographic entity in this province, that is, everything north of the French River, I am wondering what kind of a shake we are going to get when competing with agencies such as the Ontario Arts Council, the Royal Ontario Museum, and the McMichael Canadian Collection. Those are the kinds of problems people out there, the client group which normally expects program delivery from this ministry, are concerned about.

Another concern they have deals with regulation 200. I am sure the minister is well aware of the ramifications of that. They feel it should come under Tourism and Recreation, rather than having municipalities and groups applying for grants to two ministries for the same building, and quite often for the same project. In my view, that is a legitimate apprehension. They also feel that Tourism and Recreation should be the lead ministry in dealing with municipalities and local groups in all matters pertaining to recreation, tourism and culture, for the reasons explained earlier.

Another thing that occurred to me, while I was going over the three moves to reorganize and restructure three ministries, is that Tourism and Recreation should be part of the social development policy field, rather than the resources development policy field. One could argue that we are dealing with human resources, but we are talking about the social aspects of the way we structure society in this day and age. If one is talking about culture, recreation, sport or fitness, surely it is more appropriate that they come under the umbrella of the social development policy field, rather than the resources development policy field.

In setting up this new ministry, the minister is painting a very glowing picture about the potential for program delivery, even though we are splitting it up into so many components that it is going to be very difficult for the client group out there. In the minister's opening remarks he said, "I recently met with members of my parks and recreation advisory committee, and I gave those dedicated men and women my personal assurance that their needs will not be neglected in the new ministry, and that, indeed, they will find their programs and interests enriched by the union."

I may be misreading what the minister is saying here, but I do not think so. If he has a parks and recreation advisory committee, I am sure it must have expressed to him its concern about the Parks Assistance Act not coming over with the new ministry as opposed to staying in the Ministry of Natural Resources.

4:30 p.m.

I would be very surprised if they did not make that recommendation to the minister. The

schedule contained in the bill shows the acts this minister will be responsible for: the Community Recreation Centres Act, the Historical Parks Act, the Niagara Parks Act, the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, the Ontario Place Corporation Act, the St. Clair Parkway Commission Act, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act and the Tourism Act, but not the Parks Assistance Act.

I hope that was an oversight. If the minister reads it, he will see the Parks Assistance Act is all about assisting municipalities and groups within municipalities with the setting up and the operation of parks within or close to municipal boundaries.

Another thing which I would like to question the minister on, and it is at the top of page 5 in the statement he gave earlier this afternoon, is that the new ministry encompasses many government-operated attractions including Ontario Place, Minaki Lodge, Old Fort William, Huronia historical sites, the Thunder Bay ski jump complex and the three parkway commissions -- Niagara, St. Clair and St. Lawrence.

I happen to know that the Niagara Parks Commission operates an excellent facility. Over there, in a previous incarnation, I had the obligation on many occasions to take groups of visitors from other jurisdictions to Niagara and I needed only to call Jim Allan and one or two of his colleagues and they always put their best foot forward and were doing an excellent job.

I have driven through the St. Lawrence complex; I have not been to the St. Clair complex, but I want the minister to know that with the Minaki Lodge complex he is inheriting a can of worms for reasons that are well known to everyone who has studied this problem. A case is now before the courts with regard to the ownership or the liabilities inherent with that operation.

The Thunder Bay ski jump has an excellent 70-metre jump and a world-class 90-metre jump and is the envy of most jurisdictions throughout the world, but it does not make any money. The minister is going to have to continue to put money into this so it can be a showplace for international competition and a training hill for those aspiring to world-class competition.

He is inheriting some problems and some headaches and I suppose that is the nature of one's responsibility in government.

I want to get on to some comments or some reflections that I had as a result of the minister's opening statement. The minister said: "Tourism's impact on the lives of all of us will continue to grow. It has been predicted that by the year 2000 tourism will be the largest industry in this province."

I do not know. If people are going to be conservers, if they are going to be satisfied with canoeing, if they are going to be satisfied with photography or if they are going to be satisfied with bird watching that could be the case. But I doubt very much if we are going to attract people from southern Ontario, from other jurisdictions in Canada or from the United States and elsewhere all the way up to northern Ontario for canoeing, backpacking, photography or bird watching. They are going to be interested in fishing, hunting and all the things we have that are marketable in northern Ontario to attract tourist dollars from elsewhere.

I engaged the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), in a dialogue of this nature during his estimates last fall. Needless to say, he was primarily concerned about the economy because he had responsibility for industry as well as for tourism.

He was concerned about layoffs in the manufacturing sector, particularly the automotive sector, and when I started talking about the impact that tourism could have on the economy in Ontario he did not have very much to say. It was, in a very real sense, a poor country cousin in that ministry's overall responsibility for industry and tourism.

This is why I am sure the northern Ontario tourist operators are elated that they are now out from under the wing of that very large, very nebulous, very insensitive and impersonal entity that we used to call the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Now that we have the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation I think they see themselves with a much higher profile and they will get this minister's attention to a much greater extent than if he had responsibility for all the industrial woes that face the people and the economy of this province.

But if the ministry is to have the kind of impact the minister thinks the tourist industry can have, and if it is to offer the kind of opportunity for increasing tourist potential between now and the year 2000 that he thinks it can, he is going to have to work very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Because unless they can protect our fish and our wildlife resources the so-called tourist operator in northern Ontario is not going to have very much to sell, unless we want to go to a nonconsuming tourist. If he is prepared to backpack, be a canoeist or be a bird watcher, that is not where tourism is at in northern Ontario, and I am sure the minister knows that.

4:40 p.m.

We must protect, maintain and build upon what we have to offer to the average tourist who is going to spend several hundred dollars to drive to northern Ontario and then fly in from the end of a road somewhere to one of those remote fishing or hunting camps. We want to make sure there are some fish for him to catch and some wildlife for him to shoot, if that is what he is after.

We know the initiatives that have been taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources over the past two or three years to try to catch up on the management of those resources that are so critical to the tourist industry in northern Ontario. It will not happen just by the minister saying it, unless there is a good deal of coordination between this ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Trade which has control of the purse strings. This minister now has tourism but he does not have the purse strings with regard to providing incentive funding, grants and loans to the tourist industry.

Where is the Ontario Development Corp.? Where is the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.? Where is the Northern Ontario Development Corp.? They are not within this ministry.

The minister still has to talk to his friend the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) on behalf of those people in the tourist industry who can improve their facilities and take advantage of the tourist potential in areas where it still exists, if the government is going to meet its target that by the year 2000 tourism will be the largest industry in this province.

Why did the minister not take that component of NODC operations with him into the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation? It is tough enough now for us in northern Ontario to try to impress upon NODC and ODC that they should be spending funds in northern Ontario to enhance the tourist industry.

That is why, when we look at the overall restructuring, whether it be industry, tourism, recreation, culture or sports, it never was one-stop shopping. Now it has become so confusing I am going to have to phone Bob Secord every morning and say: "I have this problem. Which of the three ministries should I call?"

I am not saying it is an impossible situation; I am just saying there are a lot of people in Ontario who have not had the answers they are entitled to. When we get these joint pronouncements by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Citizenship and Culture, one wonders why they would even use the verbiage, the so-called one-window system through the community where there will be consultants from two different ministries presumably at the same location in the same building.

I want to come right back to where I started. Culture and Recreation was working very well. Do not take my word for it. Go to every community in northern Ontario with the exception of Pickle Lake -- the government is still holding tight on that -- or with the exception of Nakina.

The minister and I have had private conversations about this. He still owes me two on that. But with those two exceptions, Culture and Recreation was working extremely well, thank you very much. Manitouwadge, Marathon, Geraldton, Longlac, Schreiber, Red Rock and any one of hundreds of communities across Ontario have benefited handsomely through the programs that were made available through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

A lot of people out there think the government has done something to disturb that. They are not con